SHIVAJI SHAMRAO PATIL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R. RANJANA SHIVAJI PATIL & ORS. Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KOLHAPUR & ORS

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 6357 of 2017, Judgment Date: May 04, 2017

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6357 OF 2017
              [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 28055 OF 2014 ]


SHIVAJI SHAMRAO PATIL SINCE DECEASED
BY HIS L.R. RANJANA SHIVAJI PATIL & ORS.                      Appellant (s)

                                   VERSUS

THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
NO. 14, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA & ORS.                          Respondent(s)

                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.
1.    Leave granted.
2.    On 28.10.2016, this Court passed the following order :-
“The parties to get instructions on the following aspects:-
1)  When was the award passed?
2)    Was possession taken subsequent to the award and whether  compensation
has been paid, if so, when?
3)     What  was  the  period  of  the  operation  of  the  interim   orders
restraining them from taking possession?”

3.    The specific instruction on the  second  aspect  is  that  though  the
award is dated 05.02.1988, so far no compensation has been  paid.   If  that
is so, it squarely falls under the provision of lapse  under  Section  24(2)
of The Right to Fair Compensation  and  Transparency  in  Land  Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, since no  compensation  has  been
paid to the appellants despite passing of the  award  five  years  prior  to
01.01.2014, when  the  Act  came  into  force,  although  according  to  the
respondents, it is lying in the Revenue deposit.
4.    This Court, in  Pune  Municipal  Corporation  &  Ors.  Vs.  Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 183, made it  clear  that
the deposit made in treasury will not  save  the  lapse  referred  to  under
Section 24(2) unless the compensation is actually paid to  the  land  owners
or deposit in terms of Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
5.    Therefore, the proceedings have lapsed.  However, the respondents  are
granted a period of one year  from  today  to  exercise  the  liberty  under
Section 24(2) of The Right to Fair Compensation  and  Transparency  in  Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
6.    With the above observations and directions,  the  appeal  is  disposed
of.
      No costs.
                                                   .......................J.
                                                           [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                            [ R. BANUMATHI ]

      New Delhi;
      May 04, 2017.